Hello, I'm
Utcursch. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Surya Siddhanta, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
Self-published /
fringe texts are not acceptable sources.
utcursch |
talk 00:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the message.
- I may inform you that the subject matter concerning Surya Siddhanta relates to Classical Indian Astronomy. Experts are not readily available to review drafts submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication. It takes a few years to get the papers published.
A081950 (
talk) 02:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then we wait for them. That’s policy. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
Paracas Candelabra. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You would need reliably published secondary sources linking the text. Note we never use religious texts to prove factual material and the age you believe the text is is clearly impossible as there were no written languages then.
Doug Weller
talk 18:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Doug. I need to understand a couple of things from your comments. I didn't add any date in the improvement of wiki page
Paracas Candelabra. The date 12,000 BCE was in the text only. 2. Could you please guide me to a discussion page where religious material is identified?
A081950 (
talk) 14:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sources need to discuss the subject of the article for a start. See also WP:NOR specifcally WP:PSTS which says " Further examples of primary sources include: archeological artifacts; census results; video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, etc.; investigative reports; trial/litigation in any country (including material – which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial – published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial); editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations); tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings; tomb plaques and gravestones; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs" At times you can use these sources to confirm what they say but not as proof of, eg, historical events. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Quoting from Valmiki's Ramayana:
triśirāḥ kāṃcanaḥ ketuḥ tālaḥ tasya mahātmanaḥ |
sthāpitaḥ parvatasya agre virājati sa vedikaḥ || 4-40-53
pūrvasyām diśi nirmāṇam kṛtam tat tridaśeśvaraiḥ |
tataḥ param hemamayaḥ śrīmān udaya parvataḥ || 4-40-54
English translation is as follows.
A golden pylon resembling a palm tree with three branches as its heads is established on the peak of that mountain as the insignia of that great-souled Ananta, and it will be lustrous with a golden podium. [4-40-53]
That pylon of palm tree is constructed as the easterly compass by celestials gods, and beyond that a completely golden mountain is there, namely the august Udaya Mountain, the Mt. Sunrise. [4-40-54]
See Ramayana for additional dates.
A081950 ( talk) 18:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- We don’t care what Oak says, he easily fails our criteria for reliably published sources. You can ask ar
WP:RSN if you disagree.
Doug Weller
talk 19:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Doug. Your advice is good. I am not asking anyone else. BTW, there is an ongoing discussion on Academia accessible at
[1]. I know the platform is part of SM and, therefore, does not qualify as a reliably published source as per policy. My request to you please take time to visit and offer your comments. I invite all interested Wikipedians. Especially those from an astronomy background.
A081950 (
talk) 22:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- The paper being discussed there has never been published. And "With what ever little logic that I possess I think there is flaw inherent flaw in that Treta yuga is of 1296000 years while Dvapara yuga is of 864000 years. so if we consider 12000 BCE as time of Ramayana then that narada saying that Valmiki, you having witnessed the travel fo Rama should write it down would appear false. Besides this Kaliyuga intergnum period being mentioned as 72000 years (all in Surya siddhanta) with 12000 BCE it would be sandhi of Dvpar and nothing to do with Treta yuga."?
Doug Weller
talk 10:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I never claimed the paper was ever published. And for the quoted extract: Your source sent you only part of the thread. The answer lies in its remaining part. Only those with partial knowledge of classical Indian astronomy or who misinterpret specific verses from
Surya Siddhanta raise such objections. I prefer to call it ignorance or trying to poke one's nose where it doesn't belong. The moot point here is they object to the result without understanding how he got it.
A081950 (
talk) 15:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't suggest that any editor without expertise or of the same religion has no right to edit something related if they follow our policy and guidelines. You don't have to be a Hindu to edit related articles.
Doug Weller
talk 16:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doug, it is misinterpreting what I wrote. An Editor has all the rights irrespective of caste, creed, or religion. It is their platform. The direction of my comment was limited to the person who wrote it the first time.
A081950 (
talk) 16:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Do you mean
User:Utcursch?
Doug Weller
talk 16:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- You are welcome. Not at all. I guess User:Utcursch is an Administrator. I thought we were discussing the extract " " from Academia. A081950 ( talk) 16:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Do you mean
User:Utcursch?
Doug Weller
talk 16:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doug, it is misinterpreting what I wrote. An Editor has all the rights irrespective of caste, creed, or religion. It is their platform. The direction of my comment was limited to the person who wrote it the first time.
A081950 (
talk) 16:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't suggest that any editor without expertise or of the same religion has no right to edit something related if they follow our policy and guidelines. You don't have to be a Hindu to edit related articles.
Doug Weller
talk 16:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Doug, can you pl. explain the question mark placed at the end of quote from Academia. Do you support the contention and therefore, seeking an answer/clarification?
A081950 (
talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you believe that " Treta yuga is of 1296000 years while Dvapara yuga is of 864000 years"? Doug Weller talk 15:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I never claimed the paper was ever published. And for the quoted extract: Your source sent you only part of the thread. The answer lies in its remaining part. Only those with partial knowledge of classical Indian astronomy or who misinterpret specific verses from
Surya Siddhanta raise such objections. I prefer to call it ignorance or trying to poke one's nose where it doesn't belong. The moot point here is they object to the result without understanding how he got it.
A081950 (
talk) 15:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The paper being discussed there has never been published. And "With what ever little logic that I possess I think there is flaw inherent flaw in that Treta yuga is of 1296000 years while Dvapara yuga is of 864000 years. so if we consider 12000 BCE as time of Ramayana then that narada saying that Valmiki, you having witnessed the travel fo Rama should write it down would appear false. Besides this Kaliyuga intergnum period being mentioned as 72000 years (all in Surya siddhanta) with 12000 BCE it would be sandhi of Dvpar and nothing to do with Treta yuga."?
Doug Weller
talk 10:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Doug. Your advice is good. I am not asking anyone else. BTW, there is an ongoing discussion on Academia accessible at
[1]. I know the platform is part of SM and, therefore, does not qualify as a reliably published source as per policy. My request to you please take time to visit and offer your comments. I invite all interested Wikipedians. Especially those from an astronomy background.
A081950 (
talk) 22:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Utcursch & @ Doug Weller, this is regarding Wiki page Kurgan hypothesis, under the section Timeline. [2] Is this timeline without reference from a RS acceptable? Please advise. A081950 ( talk) 14:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
A081950 Absolutely not. Oak isn't a reliable source, anything in Academia with no publisher isn't actually published so fails our criteria, YouTube does also. Jayasree Saranathan isn't published in a reliable source and "Medium is an American online publishing platform developed by Evan Williams and launched in August 2012. It is owned by A Medium Corporation. The platform is an example of social journalism, having a hybrid collection of amateur and professional people and publications, or exclusive blogs or publishers on Medium, and is regularly regarded as a blog host."
Doug Weller
talk 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Doug Weller Thanks. Oak's and Jayasree Saranathan's issue is settled and closed per your earlier advice. The current post was a new topic, Kurgan Hypothesis. Why the new topic appeared above the references of previous topic, I don't know. I have now edited out the information.
A081950 (
talk) 18:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry. I hate that article. I presume the time line is sourced to her although that’s not clear, if it is it shouldn’t be, it should be sourced to independent sources discussing her. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Doug Weller Thanks. Oak's and Jayasree Saranathan's issue is settled and closed per your earlier advice. The current post was a new topic, Kurgan Hypothesis. Why the new topic appeared above the references of previous topic, I don't know. I have now edited out the information.
A081950 (
talk) 18:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)